Share This Article with a Friend!

Outsiders vs. Insiders: Are unhinged Democrats on the verge of starting a violent insurrection?

Drive Out Trump Pence

If you’re a Democrat and you can’t win power at the ballot box, through other genuine political means or within the brilliant framework of the Constitution, you just might resort to the only method remaining -- questioning the legitimacy of the system and all-but threatening violent revolt.

Case in point is liberal Juan Williams, a man paid to shill for the Democrats in several different media outlets. With the American economy humming along, unemployment at record low rates and a business sector literally complaining about how they’re having difficulty finding enough people to man their growing enterprises, Williams stooped low for his last resort: hinting an insurrection could be in the works.

Williams wrote on Monday at The Hill, “What can diminish faith in America as a beacon of democracy to the world?

“How about the emerging realization of an awful pattern in which the American political party that wins the most votes at the ballot box is denied control of the House of Representatives, Senate and White House?

“Even more damaging to democracy is having the party that wins with fewer votes celebrate extremist elements while ignoring the will of the majority of voters…”

Notice how Williams doesn’t bother aiming his grievances at the Constitution itself, only alluding to the notion Democrats have received a higher number of nationwide raw votes in recent elections – which theoretically should have resulted in more victories for them. If you follow Juan’s argument to its logical extreme, voters in inner city Detroit (probably almost 100% Democrat) should have a say in who represents the miners in West Virginia (heavily Republican).

It’s nonsense; what difference does it make whether Democrat House and Senate candidates won more total votes (again, nationwide) than Republicans when practically speaking Democrat voters are packed tightly into small urban enclaves and Republicans’ aren’t? If Democrats are unhappy with the concept of House districts or red states voting for Republican senators, perhaps they’d be better off amending the Constitution to “fix” it.

Good luck with that! The Founding Fathers designed the system for a reason; and the Electoral College makes perfect sense if seen through an educated lens. Williams and Democrats don’t take the trouble to do the intellectual work of recognizing the rationales behind the Founders’ end product – so instead they gripe and complain.

Mercifully Williams no longer claims Trump is illegitimate because the Russians stole the election. The eerie silence from Democrats and the media where Robert Mueller is concerned is telling – and a bit disconcerting. Instead of dredging up their usual fantasies of conspiracies and sinister Ruskies controlling President Trump’s actions and decisions like a marionette on a string they’ve settled into a “tyranny of the minority” line of argument.

This could be a volatile way to approach things, however, since Democrats are essentially communicating to their emotion-charged base that only pure democracy is rational. Therefore, in Democrats’ eyes, if an issue receives over 50 percent public support it should automatically be acted upon by our elected legislators (unless the matter favors conservatives, of course). Instead, representatives and senators should use their accumulated wisdom and expertise to make laws.

Talk about a mob mentality – should Americans ditch the Constitution because a bare majority wants to keep Obamacare? It’s absurd.

Speaking of, Williams claims Republicans are on the wrong side of the public in terms of Supreme Court appointments (wrongly assuming the addition of an originalist justice would overturn Roe v. Wade), health care (repealing Obamacare) and tax cuts. Juan then cites a litany of liberals griping about how Republicans have only won the popular vote once out of the past seven elections yet still managed to win three times.

Not to outdo himself Williams harrumphs over the handful of dissident wayward "conservatives" who've decided they can't stomach so much Republican success in the way Trump provides it -- so they're actively pining for Democrats to takeover Congress. You know Democrats are getting desperate when they quote George Will, Max Boot and Steve Schmidt as experts on what the party faithful think of Trump.

In yet another sign of Democrat desperation there are rumors circulating that none other than 2016 loser Hillary Clinton is considering giving it another (final) shot in 2020. Conservative Michael Goodwin added fuel to the speculation fires, writing in the New York Post, “With the Democratic Party locked in a battle between its far left wing and its far, far left wing, no single leader has emerged to unite it. Clinton is trying to play that role by being a mother hen to the fledgling activists drawn to politics by their hatred of Trump…

“To be clear, there are scenarios where Clinton doesn’t run. Health reasons, for example, or a younger rival could rocket to the top of the pack and become the party’s next Barack Obama. Either way, recurring nightmares of two previous defeats would send her back to wandering through the Chappaqua woods.

“For now, I am convinced Clinton wants to go for it. Doubters should recall the line about pols who get the presidential itch: There are only two cures — election or death.”

Goodwin’s theory isn’t novel – and it’s not new either. I for one speculated Hillary seriously contemplated a 2020 rematch with Trump even before she crawled out of her election night hole to deliver her pathetically sad concession speech (that really wasn’t very yielding). In order to truly give up on the “dream” of being president you need a humble enough soul to admit you were beaten – and recognize the reasons why the country chose someone else.

Instead of taking the normal conciliatory route of a presidential election loser Hillary claimed she was cheated out of the Oval Office by the Russians and the Electoral College (basically the same things Williams asserted above). It couldn’t really have been her, right? Didn’t everyone see all those “With Her” signs? Wasn’t Trump a loutish rank amateur who sniffled loudly during debates and couldn’t put two sentences together due to his lack of policy knowledge?

For Democrats it’s always about demonizing the opponent. Trump made an easy target in this respect, a thrice-married celebrity with a reputation for saying – and doing – outlandish things. Trump made confrontation into an art form – a style that typically doesn’t thrive in American politics. Clinton should’ve been able to pile drive Trump with his history – and she tried desperately, yanking jilted beauty queens from 20 years ago out of the dressing room closet and pulling out all the stops to depict the New York real estate billionaire (and former family friend) as the second coming of political Satan.

Along the way, however, Clinton merely reaffirmed all the reasons Americans couldn’t stand her. While it’s true Trump managed to alienate practically every Republican in the land during the party primaries he was almost always gracious and accepting once his opponents were vanquished. Trump even tried to take Ted Cruz back until the Texan’s infamous convention snub. (Can you believe that was two years ago? July 21, 2016.)

By contrast Clinton’s only intra-party opposition came from avowed socialist Bernie Sanders, a white haired, clownish “senile old coot” from ultra-liberal Vermont who speaks with a funny accent and sounds ticked off all the time. Shouldn’t Hillary’s “stronger together” campaign have cast Bernie to the side with relative ease?

Of course Clinton made the ultimate mistake in early September of 2016 by labeling “half of Trump supporters” as being from the “basket of deplorables.” Whereas Trump would theoretically have had problems motiving the GOP base to turnout for him, now Hillary provided all the urgency for him. The Clintons just have a knack for getting under people’s fingernails.

But that was then and this is now. Hillary can bide her time for another six months or so, assess the mood of the electorate after this year’s midterm elections and still be ready to pounce when the time is ripe. As Goodwin pointed out in his piece there are already a number of factors in her favor – name recognition, lack of an incumbent, no true frontrunner (or even the prospect of getting one, save for idiot Joe Biden) and a Democrat base that’s hankering for revenge.

Here's hoping she’ll actually run – it would be worth it just to read Trump’s tweets alone.

For his part Trump isn’t going out of his way to make friends with the old GOP establishment, which technically should be a bad thing – but his loyal backers seem to love it. Trump even jabbed at George H.W. Bush recently. From an Associated Press report (in the Washington Times), “A former White House press secretary says President Donald Trump was ‘rude’ to dis former President George H.W. Bush’s volunteerism program.

“Trump was talking about ‘winning’ during a free-wheeling campaign rally Thursday in Montana and raised Bush’s ‘Thousand Points of Light.’ Trump said people get the meaning of his slogans, ‘Make America Great Again’ and ‘Putting America First.’ Then he added: ‘Thousand Points of Light. I never quite got that one. What the hell is that? Has anyone ever figured that one out?’…

“Ari Fleischer, press secretary for Bush’s son, President George W. Bush, tweeted that he doesn’t mind Trump ‘being a fighter.’ He added: ‘I do mind him being rude.’”

By now everyone knows Trump says odd things from time to time when speaking extemporaneously at one of his rallies. It’s doubtful the president was trying to insult the 94-year-old former president, though the Bush family hasn’t exactly been kind to Trump and there’s no love lost between the old blue blood party establishment and the populist current chief executive.

Besides, Trump made a relevant point – his marketing side understands that a short and clearly decipherable message makes for a winner. Can you imagine “Thousand Points of Light” on a hat or T-shirt? There’s no doubt about the meaning of “Make America Great Again,” however, to such a degree that unhinged leftists continue to assault people who are steadfast enough to wear the Trump campaign gear where they might be seen – and are unprotected by law enforcement.

John Hawkins of PJ Media reported on another recent incident, “In a country with very divergent political views, we need to be able to live with each other. That means we need places where politics are set aside. That means having a certain amount of tolerance for people with differing views. That means an acceptance that every person who disagrees with you is not a Nazi.

“This is a hard concept to grasp for liberals, who seem to be quite literally saying in large numbers that people who openly support Donald Trump deserve to be harassed or even attacked in public.

“If you want to see how off the rails the Left has gone on this front, the Kino Jimenez case is a perfect example. Jimenez stole a MAGA hat from a teen at a Whataburger and threw his drink in his face.”

As you’d guess Hawkins’ report includes video of the disgusting “attack” – it couldn’t rightly be labeled anything else. The images show Jimenez walking over, yanking away the MAGA hat, throwing a drink in the owner’s face and then stomping away saying he was going to burn the hat in his fireplace (and he used the “n-word” too).

Aside from the “he shouldn’t have done it” notions of decency, can you imagine if someone did the same thing to a kid wearing an Obama “Hope and Change” shirt or hat? Right off the bat the national media would blanket the evening news airwaves and there’d be expert panels assembled to dish on the prevalence of racism in America.

But when a Trump supporter gets verbally and physically browbeaten, liberals applaud (Hawkins’ article contains their tweets). The other way around and it makes national news and Obama would probably hold another “beer summit” to calm tensions after hoodlums in several cities rioted and burned down their neighborhoods.

Tensions in America aren’t dying down and ugly incidents are becoming the norm. The left is desperate to release the rage it feels over Donald Trump – and people like Juan Williams aren’t helping things. With a Supreme Court nomination to deal with now, it’ll only get worse.

Share this

Founders didn't even mention state winner-take-all

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 38+ states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.
10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant now.

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. . The Founders had been dead for decades

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

The National Popular Vote bill is 64% of the way to guaranteeing the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency in 2020 to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live.